The Nature of ‘Equitable Property’
A cardinal of factors butterfingers the ‘deserted wife’s equity’ from acceptance as a acreage appropriate in National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth  AC 1175:
I advance you attending at the developing concepts of fairness, because this is why the MHA 1967 was developed. Proprietary Estoppel for cohabitees is acceptable beneath accustomed due to the decisions in ancestors home trust. Thus, candor is at the centre of the approach, except the bright accouterment of a proprietary absorption is all-important and not alone the accouterment of a roof over the other’s head. This is accepted to Ainsworth, proprietary estoppel and the ancestors home effective trust. The account is that it would not be fair to appoint a proprietary appropriate afterwards a proprietary intention.
The case of National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth  AC 1175 holds a bound access to compassionate non-occupier’s rights in property.
National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth captivated that the accepted law appropriate for the bedmate to accommodate a roof over the arch of the bare wife was alone in personam. This agency affairs the acreage to a third affair will acquiesce the bedmate to abstain his obligation to his bare wife
It is important to agenda that it predates the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967 (MHA 1967).
The MHA 1967was developed to antidote the blemish in National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth, which indicates that the assembly recognised that the absolute law with account to bare wife’s disinterestedness and its enforceability adjoin third parties was clearly unfair.
The law on proprietary estoppel provides that the third affair acquisition their rights will be interfered with.
The elements of proprietary estoppel can aftereffect in an in personam appropriate acquisition an in rem appropriate if the afterward aspect is fulfilled:
Reasonable acceptance that the being will accept absorption in property
Acts analytic in reliance
Gillet v Holt
This is illustrated in a cardinal of cases that accept bidding that the capital agency is that there is a bright announcement of a proprietary appropriate in the acreage (Thorner v Major  UKHL 18). The case of Walsh v Singh  1 FLR 1658 captivated that conduct additional damage is not abundant is not abundant to acquiesce a affirmation for proprietary estoppel. In addition, the case of Negus v Bahouse  1 FCR 768 captivated that account to accommodate a roof over the individual’s arch or a assurance to move in is not abundant to acquiesce a affirmation for proprietary estoppel.
The Negus v Bahouse Case is, in part, applies the aforementioned formulaic approach, as The association is that there has to be a bright announcement of a proprietary right, in adjustment for proprietary estoppel to be used.
There are a alternation of cases on the effective ancestors home trust, which may change the ambition posts on what an announcement of a proprietary appropriate back it comes to a spousal/partner interest. These cases are Oxley v Hiscock  EWCA Civ 546, which articular that in ancestors accord there is an obligation to ensure that there is candor in the rights of a non-property owning spouse/partner.
In these cases the use of the effective assurance would be bigger for the ancestors affiliate who has relied on a acreage appropriate accepted by the acreage owning spouse/partner (
The “deserted wife” (partner) has to appearance that she “has any absorption in it [the property] at all” (Stack v Dowden at 56). This agency the ambition is accepted through the accord (i.e. accord additional addition = allotment in the property). Thus, both proprietary estoppel and the ancestors home effective assurance has move abroad from the in personam appropriate not trumping an in rem right. However, for this to assignment there has to be a bright announcement of a proprietary absorption and not alone accouterment a roof over the individual’s arch (Negus v Bahouse cf. National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth for similarity).
The appulse of the candor rulings in Oxley v Hiscock. Stock v Dowden and Jones v Kernott may change the bald announcement altercation if the attributes of the accord imputes an acceptance of a proprietary right. Thus, potentially the obligation to accommodate a roof over the arch of the alternative affair is sufficient.
Additional References to Consider on top of Proprietary Estoppel:
Baroness Deech, ‘Cohabitation’  Ancestors Law 39
Fretwell, K “Fairness is what amends absolutely is: Kernott v Jones in the Supreme Court” (2011) Ancestors Law 41(7)
Hayward, AP “Family Acreage and the Process of Familialization of Acreage Law” (2012) Child and Ancestors Law Quarterly 24(3)
McGhee, M “Shifting the Scales of Social Amends in the Cohabitation Context: The Juridical Basis for the Varying of interests in Residential Property” (2012) Oxford University Law Journal 1(19)
Mee, J “Burns v Burns: The Villain of the Piece?” in Probert, R, Herring, J and Gilmore, S Landmark Cases in Ancestors Law (Hart, 2011)
Mee, J “Ambulation, Severance and the Accepted Ambition Effective Trust” (2012) Law Quarterly Review 128(500)
Miles, J “Charman v Charman (No 4)  EWCA Civ 503 – authoritative faculty of charge advantage and according administration afterwards Millar: MacFarlane” (2008) Child and Ancestors Law Quarterly 20(376)
Pawlowski, M “Joint buying and the ancestors home” (2011) Acreage Law Review, 1(68)
Probert, R “Cohabitation: Current Legal Solutions” (2009) Current Legal Problems 62(1)
Probert, R “Cohabitation in Twentieth Century England and Wales” (2004) Law and Policy 26(1)
Smithdale, J “Inference, Imputation, or BothConfusion Persists over Beneficial Interests in the Ancestors Home” (2011) CSLR 74, p 79
Order a unique copy of this paper